Like Spain meeting the Aztecs for the first time or maybe even Rome and China

What would happen if let's say, two people courting in Victorian England had sex, and the woman ended up pregnant? Would their respective families force a quick marriage?

Among the lower class, or servants, were they more likely to "date" in the modern sense of the word since c'mon, I'm sure their lords wouldn't care if some servant was having sex outside of marriage.

They had relatively small population at the time and the British had full control of the area. Why would they tolerate someone with different culture, language and most importantly Catholics?

In today's world all bullets have a pointy shape to them but in the past those bullets were round. Why was were the bullets round shaped in the early days of firearms?

Do they lack the technology to produce pointy bullets? Was it just cheaper to make the bullets round rather than pointy?

Hello! First time posting.

Currently writing a screenplay that takes place during the Great Famine in Europe during 1315-1317. I’ve been searching for educational reading on this event but keep coming up short. Any suggestions?

Meaning, was it considered a subgroup of the military. Thanks in advance!

I've heard the book is very incoherent and just basically the ravings of an anti-semite, but does the book offer any significant insight into the man that wrote it?

I ask because I believe when you humanize a monsters you realize that they weren't some such rarity, but shows you how close and easily society can descend into chaos and "evil".

Most scholars date the death of the historical Buddha (Gautama) to around 400 BC, by which time he had gained a significant following and must have been well-known all over the Ganges plain.

Plato died circa 50 years later. He had widely travelled himself, and by virtue of his position in the academy must have interacted with tens of thousands of people from the entire known world, probably including merchants with trade networks extending to the Indian subcontinent.

Is there any direct evidence, or reason to believe, that Plato (or any of his Greek contemporaries) had heard about Buddha and/or his teachings?

He ruled over a vast, complex array lands that match those of Charlemagne, the roman empire etc, but am I right in thinking he has been relatively neglected by historians given the amount of power he had (at least on paper)? What has driven this?

I've read about the "3 strikes of the match" that led to the American Revolution.

But the Founding Fathers did also put down rebellions and uprisings by the common men after independence, so as to preserve the newly established union.

Did their writings give us clues as to what characteristics/traits made a government tyrannical at the time?

I'm currently a junior taking AP U.S. History in an American high school. We're approaching the progressive era, and in the next couple of months, we'll hit the age of McCarthyism. I find it quite odd that a large portion of American history centers around the battle between American capitalism (and democracy) and communism, yet the Communist Manifesto is not required reading. I am not advocating for the spread of communism, nor am I attempting to start a debate over the utility of capitalism vs communism. I am simply wondering why on earth the College Board expects us to learn about a critical portion of our nation's history without analyzing the values and components of the system we fought to erase from existence. Are we not capable of entertaining a thought, even though some may disagree with it?

From the Commission report: "The most common charge levelled against the founders, and hence against our country itself, is that they were hypocrites who didn’t believe in their stated principles, and therefore the country they built rests on a lie. This charge is untrue, and has done enormous damage, especially in recent years, with a devastating effect on our civic unity and social fabric."

However, I did find the Marquis de Lafayette reportedly telling someone he wouldn't have fought for America's independence if he had known it would become a nation of slavery, though I don't know when he said that.

Given the huge financial incentives from the trade, I wondered whether this pseudo scientific theory was just invented at the time to keep the trade going and be defendable in the age of supposed reason/enlightenment. Or was it always there and just developed over time?

Hi. As an Argentine myself, in recent years I have wondered why the country is in this cyclical situation. What is the point of view of economic historians from outside the country. And what repercussions have they generated (since, sadly, it is not a topic that is talked about or educated in any way. The most common is to hear people complain about how bad the country is for decades, but not a detailed explanation and complex about why the country is still in the same situation)📷

I only have a vague understanding of the Dutch in this area. I read that the Dutch would hire samurai as part of their military in initial conquests in part as executioners and that they burned a lot of islands, in part to raise the prices of the spices they took and sold. Were the British, French, and Portuguese similar in their treatment of people and lands?

How much of government would be controlled by the occupying power in different countries? Did local people have opportunities to rise to prominence through private enterprise or government office? I'm guessing these would be different depending on occupying power.

I know in Haiti that some French colonists would have children, often non-consensually, with black people and those children were essentially their own section of society under the law. Was there any kind of analogue in Asia?

Thanks for any answers you can give or sources you can provide.

Hi guy’s. On mobile just in case the formatting is odd.

Whenever Vikings are portayed in popular culture I often find the burly/brawny/stocky woman warrior trope who are, as part of the trope, sometimes more adept than men in combat. For instance I’m watching Amazon Prime’s Vikings and there are many women warriors.

Of course I appreciate how silly it is to rely on a TV show for historical accuracy but as previously mentioned above, this is something I see quite a lot when Vikings are depicted in the media. Thus, I’m wondering if there is some truth to it somewhere. Where there’s smoke there’s fire type of thing? (Terrible analogy but the best I could come up with).

My question is have different peoples come up with the same weapons on their own or have they been invented only once and the innovation transmitted through history over time and borders?

I'm talking about all ancient weapons like the bow, the javelin, the slingshot, the spear etc and even the sword

Do we have any historic evidence to this?

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this (apologies if so), but I'll ask anyway. During the 1940s did alot of men marry to avoid being outed by society? Was there some sort of underground scene for these men or not?

Hello all,

I was looking for some comprehensive content covering all the Middle Ages. Do you have any sources that you feel does a good job of outlining at lot of that history. Anything is appreciated; books, YouTube channels, articles, what have you.

Thank you!